Good post Zach...very insightful.

I find the argument here a little confused. We are to celebrate faith for its willingness to go beyond reason, but what we're supposed to find suspicious about Wicca, etc., is precisely that its _origins_ make it somehow... odious to reason. If you're not a "rationalist", then what is the sense of making the supernatural part of any religion "open to scrutiny"?

I don't really see the point you're trying to make with the wikipedia entry in question, btw; part of Wiccan religious experience, like that of many forms of Christianity, involves the felt presence of divinity _by the individual worshipper_, and not merely a deference to the revelation of someone else, long dead. If one has felt the presence of the Horned One himself (or whatever), then what should it matter whether the current form of the rituals was mostly stolen from 19th century literature? Wherever they got the rituals from, they _work_! And, moreover, the power of the rituals is itself a sign that their origins must _somehow_ be authentic. (Or so, at least, a non-rationalist individual of the sort in question could believe.)

phil,

I think the point of questioning Wicca and, especially, Mormonism and Scientology is that there are reasons to believe their founders weren't being entirely honest about the events surrounding those religions' founding.

By the way, great post.

I found Zach's explicit recognition of the distinction between old and new religions telling, phil, although it leads to the same conclusion from a sceptic's point of view--indeed, one can conceive of how, after a couple dozen years of memetic evolution in a competitive ideological ecosystem, the 'old' religions might have found it easiest to simply shroud their rituals and foundations behind a veil of ignorance. (Burke, interestingly, makes rather the same point in defending the traditions of the English constitution--which he says aren't really all that old, but we should pretend they are.)

Calling something "authentic", however, is problematic--"authentic" by whose lights? Should we accept Wicca as authentic if it fulfills its participants' desires to engage in the varieties of religious experience--or should we insist that it be part of a true and unbroken line of ritual succession from the time of the Druids? If the latter, should we hold Christianity to the same standards, and ask of its practitioners that they reorganize themselves into communes, abstain from worldly pleasures, and baptise each other in the Jordan?

Now, phil was arguing instead that you can't be rationalist vis-a-vis one faith and not the others; the truth claims of Christianity and Wicca and Neo-Philistinism (a faith revealed to me yesterday while I sucked on Jolly Ranchers and watched The King of Queens) must be subjected to the same rigor.

The South Park ep was typically brilliant--the final monologue takes a fine, but preachy, episode and turns it into a work of genius. Matt and Trey are more insightful about their own work than their critics.

But why should the _motives_ of some of the early practitioners matter? For example, many early Christians were looking primarily for a political tool against the Romans (as were so many Jews of that time). Suppose that all of the original apostles had something like that in mind -- would such a result cause you to doubt your faith in Christianity? I would not think so. Those who initially receive revelations might not always know best what to do with them (and indeed, in the Gospels, Jesus often chastises the apostles for their cluelessness).

But, more to the point, those sorts of concerns about the origins are _rationalist_ concerns, and I was objecting to Zach raising such concerns even while opposing rationalism. For the supernaturalist, revelation is revelation, no matter what the motives of earlier folks, no matter what the other evidence to the contrary might be. And the power of one's own personal revelations will in many cases be way more than enough to obliterate the kinds of doubts that a slightly fishy historical record might raise.

"Calling something "authentic", however, is problematic--"authentic" by whose lights?"

Just to clarify: I was speaking _in voce pagana_; and I meant "authentic" in the sense of "coming from the real source" (as in a phrase like "a gen-yoo-wine, authentic, 100-dollar bill"), as opposed to a sense about harkening back to the way our grandmothers' grandmothers' grandmothers may have worshipped.

I suppose 'origins' as applied to Wicca could just as well mean the experience of contemporary Wiccans, given that these individual revelations would constitute the definitive supernatural events.

Therefore, a Wiccan who says, "I just felt the presence of the divine!" would elicit the same response as Joseph Smith's, "I just had a theophany!" from South Park Butler Wife: "Why would he make that up?"

Such would be the rationalist critique, but as a non-rationalist, such scrutiny only makes sense if one wonders how these individual experiences form a coherent belief system. The myriad variations and esoterism of Wicca still leave one confused as to how to take the religion as a whole.

Rising to Zach's defense (in part), let me point out that a True Believer in any True Faith can agree entirely with a rationalists' doubts about all other religions and still be entirely consistent. Sure, that guy was a kook...but my prophet really does talk to the lords of Kobol.

Let me also counter phil's point about gen-yoo-ine authenticity (a nice distinction) by noting that it is my understanding (based on a near-total ignorance of the subject!) that part of the appeal of Wiccan practices is the idea that it is a rejuvenated/rediscovered corpus of practices with a 'real' (i.e., objective) history. So I think that (some of) Wicca's claims can be evaluated more "sceptic"ally than those of Victorian spiritualists.

phil, I was not addressing the motives of Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, et al, but their sincerity. Although a skeptic may think all religions are "made up," there's a significant difference between someone sincerely believing they've received a revelation from the supernatural (even if they're sincerely wrong) and someone who premeditatively decides to invent a religion because they think it would be a fun, remunerative, or empowering thing to do.

In my opinion, Buddhism belongs to the former category and Scientology to the latter, to give just a couple examples.

I'm not sure where, precisely, this fits into the discussion, but it seems worth noting that Martin Luther objected to the bases and authenticity of certain Christian practices of his day. So, he dumped many of the more recent accretions but kept the earlier ones.

I suppose I'd be categorized as a rationalist, and I am not an adherent to any religion (though I wouldn't call myself an atheist since belief in no God seems to be an act of faith as well.) But, my readings from the Bible make me more suspicious of the writings of Paul than of the Gospels (although I vaguely recall having more issues with the Book of John than the other three -- it's been awhile though, so I can't recall much specific.)

Anyway, even within Christianity, it certainly seems possible to have a sliding scale of skepticism, having virtually none for the earliest books of the Gospel, a little more for the works of St. Paul, and a lot for doctrine adopted by medieval Popes.

What I find messed up about Issac Hayes leaving is because he left over insults towards Scientology. Apparently he didn't care about the thousands of other insults directed to every walk of live the South Park creators could think of. They insult everyone and everything, that's what's so great about the show, they don't discriminate. But I guess Mr Hayes couldn't handle a little insult.

Regarding the made-up-ness of various religions and would-be religions -- I think that Scientology is the rare case where the evidence really does point to a founder cynically setting out to concoct a religion. In most other cases, I see no reason not to think that the founders are themselves just as snookered by the line they are pushing as their flock is. I don't doubt Joseph Smith's sincerity. This is where issues of motivation & self-knowledge does come into it -- how do we draw the line between making-it-up-without-realizing-that-you're-making-it-up and real-divine-inspiration? (Without appealing to the truth we each may find in our own preferred sect, that is.) After all, if you take the set of major world religions, many of them have to take significant claims of the others to be in the former category.

"Such would be the rationalist critique, but as a non-rationalist, such scrutiny only makes sense if one wonders how these individual experiences form a coherent belief system. The myriad variations and esoterism of Wicca still leave one confused as to how to take the religion as a whole." For starters, if one takes Christianity as a whole -- even just looking at all its forms today but especially if we consider all its historical variations -- I think you'll find more than a little "myriad variation and esoterism". Moreover, most forms of Christianity have internal reasons to view such diversity with suspicion; if you believe in an absolute monotheism, then you might reasonably expect for one's religion to form a nice unified system. But why should all Wiccans endorse something like that? If your religion is one that allows for all sorts of pluralities & mysteries, then it's hardly a strike against it to say that it's a bit of a mess & takes on all sorts of different forms.

In response to Paul's response: perhaps there are some versions of Wicca which would be vulnerable to that charge, but I have no reason to expect that it is universal across Wicca (for the reasons just discussed). Moreover, the basic form of the argument I presented earlier still stands: if the rituals seem to work, then that is excellent evidence of their genuineness. I mean, if the Horned Lord chose to bring these rituals to us through some half-deranged Victorian poet or whatever, well, he works in mysterious ways, eh?

I still fail to see how one draws lines of intellectual respectability here that puts Christianity and Hinduism, say, on one side and Wicca and LDS on the other. The rationalist will heap them all on the bunkpile, and the supernaturalist will find all to have the requisite grounding in (putative) divine revelation.